HOME
 
WELCOME
 
LOBBY
 

(NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE)

HEMP
FOR VICTORY:
A GLOBAL

WARMING
SOLUTION

Click The Cover
To Buy The Book

By: Founder/Curator
Richard M. Davis

 
ABOUT THE CURATOR
 
MUSEUM STORE
 
HEMP ROOMS
 
AGRICULTURE
 
BIO-FUELS
 
BUILDING
MATERIALS
 
CANNABIS COMMENDATIONS
 
CHEMICAL
FEED STOCKS
 
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 
 
FOOD
PRODUCTS
 
HISTORY
 
LEGAL
MATTERS
 
LIBRARY
 
MEDICINE
& HEALTH
 
PAPER-PULP
 
PLASTICS
 
POLITICAL
MATTERS
 
RECREATION
& RELIGION  
 
ROPE & TWINE
 
TEXTILES
 
VARNISH
 & PAINT  
 
USA HEMP MUSEUM'S
OFFICE
 
BANNERS & LINKS
 
RICHARD M. DAVIS BLOG
 
HEMP FOR VICTORY NOW BLOG
 
MEMBERSHIP
 
CONTACT  US
 
PRESS
 

HEMP LEGAL MATTERS
ROOM

USA Hemp Museum Store
Bookmark This Site -
Museum Link
Email The Museum

THE 1937 MARIJUANA TAX STAMP ACT
v.
UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION

 

ROOM GUIDE

1.  WELCOME 7. 13. MAGAZINES ON MARIJUANA
2.  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RULINGS 8. UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297, U.S. I, 1936.  (commentary)    14.  CURATOR'S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
3.  MEDICAL MARIJUANA 9. CASE OF ALASKA. 15.
4.  INDUSTRIAL HEMP 10. 16.
5.  MARIJUANA TAX ACT 11. 17.
6.  SOLUTIONS 12.  LETTERS  ON LEGAL MATTERS   18.  READINGS ON LEGAL MATTERS  

 

ALLOW BLOCKED CONTENT TO VIEW VIDEO

Riverside Co. Sheriffs Explain Medical Marijuana Guidelines

 

 

Legal Marijuana Garden!!!

 

 

 

 

1.  WELCOME TO THE HEMP LEGAL MATTERS 
ROOM.

Hemp the Cannabis sativa plant, was legal for all uses to U.S. Citizens before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. What happened? How did the government take control of drug policy? How did the Prohibition of intoxicating liquor fit in to the story? What are the present arguments made to justify federal government control of drug policy? How are the laws changing? So many questions need answers.  The movement to re-legalize the hemp plant has had several surges in the past 63 years, including its use in World War II, the sixties revolution, the re-discovery of industrial uses of hemp and the Medical Marijuana movement.  Included in this section will be some of the artifacts of the effort to re-legalize the plant, buttons, bumper stickers, posters, fliers, pamphlets and books that the museum has collected.

 

The legal nightmare of hemp prohibition went on long enough to cause the home invasion murder of Donald Scott.  No drugs were present.  The various police agencies had already divided up Scott's 4 million dollar property on paper.  These tactics over a relatively harmless plant are an outrage.  The government will only be stopped with re-legalization of hemp, all hemp.
The Ventura County District Attorney's REPORT ON THE DEATH OF DONALD SCOTT.  March 30, 1993.
We have solutions to the "drug war."  We have the precedent of the first prohibition, which ended one day in  1933.  Prohibition II will end one day, also.
 

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void...its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment...No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

                                        -16 Am Jur 2d 177

 

And where did the money go?
Our elected officials make the bad laws as well as the good ones.  We need jury nullification to help get rid of bad law.
Question authority!
 

Bob Marley On Hemp

The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened.  This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty.                                         

 -Former Lord Chief Justice Hailsham, "The Dilemma of democracy"   E-mail from Peter Webster

A 1994 call for help.   "...in California we have an initiative process to get around cowardly officials lacking the nerve to do the right thing."  Two years later the people passed Proposition 215 allowing some people to use Cannabis, but not all.
NORML POSTER AD.

2.  RULINGS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
PUNISHMENT MUST FIT CRIME IN U.S. SEIZURES.

"...a unanimous court ruled that the Eighth Amendment - banning excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment - applies to all forfeiture cases."

Here are a couple of rulings in California CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, I found in the UCLA Law Library: (5) [&469] Possession of Marijuana (and Privacy).
In National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Gain (1979) 100 C.A.3d 586, 161 C.R. 181, individual taxpayers and an organization brought an action against local law enforcement officials and the district attorney, attacking sections of the Health and Safety Code that prohibit the private possession and use of marijuana by adults. Following the approach in Privitera (supra, &467), the court declared that the California constitutional right of privacy "does not guarantee adult Californians the privilege of smoking a possibly harmful drug, even in the privacy of their homes." (100 C.A.3d 593.)

The ruling cited above as precedent from CA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

(3) [&467] Drug Efficacy Requirement ( and Privacy).

In People v. Privitera (1979) 23 C.3d 697, 153 C.R. 431, 591 P.2d 919, defendants were convicted of the felony of conspiracy to sell and prescribe the unapproved drug laetrile for the alleviation or cure of cancer.  Held, freedom to obtain drugs of unproven efficacy (prohibited by statutes and administrative regulations) is not within the right of privacy guaranteed by the federal or California Constitutions. The United States Supreme Court 
in Roe v. Wade (supra, &436) and Whalen v. Roe (supra, &443) recognized that certification of a drug’s efficacy is a reasonable means to insure health and safety, and that the "important decisions" falling within the right of privacy do not include medical treatment. (23 C.3d 702, 703,709.) (See 25 UCLA L. Rev. 577 [The Drug Efficacy Requirement and the Right of Privacy]; 13 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 227 [Privitera]; 5 A.L.R.4th 219 [same]; 13 Southwestern L. Rev. 531 [A Constitutional Analysis of Federal Drug Marketing Regulations and Food and Drug Administration Implementation]; 39 Stanf. L. Rev. 1453 [employee drug-testing legislation].)

CURATOR'S NOTE: What we have in the above ruling is the CA Court citing the federal right of privacy, that "important decisions" falling within the right of privacy do not include medical treatment. There is no federal 
Constitutional right to privacy per se, while California has an enumerated inalienable and fundamental right to privacy which must be subjected to the strictest interpretation by the court, therefore "important decisions" including medical treatment of the citizen’s body, ought not to be based on federal law, but the stronger right of the people of California to privacy AS IS THE CASE IN THE STATE OF ALASKA. (See Alaska)

 

Please support

Jack Herer's California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2008

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1

    All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

 

 

*****

 

CA CODE CIVIL CODE SECTION 1798.1

The Legislature declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution.

*****

May 16, 2000.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 5-4 decision that Congress overstepped it authority in allowing rape victims to sue.  What was interesting here is that the Court refused to allow Congress free reign in the name of "interstate commerce."  The Violence Against Women Actof 1994 is unconstitutional, "Because the federal government has no right to regulate a private act, such as rape, that is neither part of interstate commerce nor caused by state officials."

*****

This 1912 magazine was printed the year of the Harrison Narcotics Act, which rightly did not include non-narcotic hemp products.  This act upheld the State's rights to determine drug policy.

Hemp Museum framed magazine cover.

LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE LOS ANGELES TIMES: MAY 16, 2000.

RE: High Court Ruling: Congress overstepped it authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court took a big step toward overturning the war on drugs today when the Court declared, "...the federal government has no right to regulate a private act, such as rape (the same reasoning applies to smoking a joint for my own private use), that is neither part of interstate commerce (I grew it in my own back yard) nor caused by state officials." Congress has no power over "non-economic, violent criminal conduct" that does not cross state lines, said Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. "The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.  "What does this say about Prop. 215 and its non-economic, non-violent, non-criminal conduct? California lawmakers ought to be ashamed for not knowing the national versus local distinction. They should pass hemp farming laws, medical freedom laws, and private use of pot laws immediately. Before the people have to again take the initiative. It’s their job.

Richard M. Davis, Curator   U.S.A. Hemp Museum

*****

Pictured (right) is an honest-to-god government grown and rolled marijuana joint.  Lousy tasting and mostly leaf of poor quality pot, these joints were given to patients on a trial program that ended abruptly with 36 patients, of which 7 remain.

 

We shall see how the conservative court ruled when confronted with the federally mandated "war on some drugs."  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said, "The restoration of federalism scrutiny in our federal courts is a welcome development in the law.  The Constitution reserves to the states the 'ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice,'" he said, quoting Alexander Hamilton.    

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist echoed the words of Hamilton when he said, "the Founders denied the National government and reposed in the States...the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims."

 

 

*****

Stamps helped end the first prohibition.
Also under this section of rulings of law, see U.S. V. BUTLER, 
297, U.S. I, 1936, Plus Commentary.  A quote from Butler from the Supreme Court of the U.S.:

"The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a  statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. "

*****

3.  MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW.

Medical Cannabis was an agricultural crop, long before the big marijuana scare by the Treasury Department, and as such the federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from controlling Cannabis in any form by U.S. v. Butler above.    [More on this later.]

*****

4.  INDUSTRIAL HEMP LAW.

THE U.N. LAW ON INDUSTRIAL HEMP.  The U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, Article 28, allows the planting of industrial hemp.  This is the way many countries such as Canada are breaching the prohibition mentality.  According to the U.S. Government classification of Cannabis, the Canadians are growing huge fields of marijuana.

*****

5.  MARIJUANA TAX ACT OF 1937.
The hearings on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, before the House Committee on Ways and Means, is 125 pages.  Following is a greatly condensed version of maybe 4 or 5 pages.  Thanks to James Dawson for this version from the original hemp museum.
 

TAXATION OF MARIHUANA 
How the congress was duped to pass a measure that eradicated an industry, 

and started the  myth of marihuana.

 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 6385 APRIL 27,28,29,30, AND MAY 4, 1937  

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1937 

The term "marihuana: includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin; but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, or any product or manufacture of such stalks, except the resin extracted there from and any compound, 
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin.(p.1)

THE PURPOSE OF H.R. 6385 IS TO EMPLOY THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER NOT ONLY TO RAISE REVENUE FROM THE MARIHUANA TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO TO DISCOURAGE THE CURRENT AND WIDESPREAD UNDESIRABLE USE OF MARIHUANA BY SMOKERS AND DRUG ADDICTS AND THUS DRIVE THE TRAFFIC INTO CHANNELS WHERE THE PLANT WILL BE PUT TO VALUABLE INDUSTRIAL, MEDICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC USES.  IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS GENERAL PURPOSE TWO OBJECTIVES SHOULD DICTATE THE FORM OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION:  FIRST, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SCHEME OF TAXATION WHICH WOULD RAISE REVENUE AND WHICH WOULD ALSO RENDER VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE THE ACQUISITION OF MARIHUANA BY PERSONS WHO WOULD PUT IT TO ILLICIT USES WITHOUT UNDULY INTERFERING WITH THE USE OF THE PLANT FOR INDUSTRIAL, MEDICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES;  AND SECOND, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE MEANS OF PUBLICIZING DEALINGS IN MARIHUANA IN ORDER THAT THE TRAFFIC MAY BE EFFECTIVELY TAXED AND CONTROLLED.(P.7) 

Since hemp fiber and articles manufactured there from are obtained from the harmless mature stalk of the plant, all such products have been completely eliminated from the purview of the bill by defining the term "marihuana" in the bill, so as to exclude from its provisions the mature stalk and its compounds or manufacturers.  There are also some dealings in marihuana seeds for planting purposes and for use in the manufacture of oil which is ultimately employed by the paint and varnish industry.  As the seeds, unlike the mature stalk, contain the drug, the same complete exemption could not be applied in this instance.  but this type of transaction, as well as any transfer of completed paint or varnish products, has been exempted from transfer tax.  Any negligible medical use which marihuana may have will also be left largely unrestricted by this bill.(p.8) 

This order form (for transfer) does not apply however to a transfer of marihuana by a practitioner to his patient, or by a druggist to a consumer who presents to the druggist a prescription issued by a practitioner registered under the act.  Nor does it apply to exportations of marihuana, transfers of marihuana to Government officials, transfers to paint or varnish of which marihuana is an ingredient, transfers of marihuana to registered persons for use in the manufacture of paint or varnish and transfers of seeds of the marihuana plant.(p.9) 

In order to obviate the possibility of a similar attack upon the CONSTITUTIONALITY of this bill, it like the National Firearms Act, permits the transfer of marihuana  to non registered persons upon the payment of a heavy transfer tax.(p.9) 

The Court repeated the rule that so long as a statute APPEARS upon its face to be a revenue measure, the Court cannot go behind the statute and inquire as to the motives which impelled Congress  to enact it, although those motives may have been to REGULATE, rather than to raise revenue. (p.10) 

Mr. Anslinger:  "...marihuana is the same as Indian hemp, and is sometimes found as a residual weed,  and sometimes as the result of a dissemination of birdseed.  It is known as cannabis, cannabis Americana, or cannabis Sativa. Marihuana is the Mexican term for cannabis Indica.  We seem to have adopted the Mexican terminology, and we call it marihuana, which means GOOD-FEELING. (p.18) 

Mr. Anslinger:   ..."At the Geneva Convention in 1895 the term "cannabis" included only the dried flowering or fruiting top of the pistillate plant as the plant source of the dangerous resin, from which the resin had not been extracted....we have urge the States to revise their definition so as to include all parts of the plant, as it now seems that the seeds and portions other than the dried flowering tops contain positively dangerous substances...as a matter of fact, the staminat leaves are about as harmless as a rattlesnake...this drug is entirely the monster Hyde."(p.19) 

Cannabis Indica is the medicinal preparation known to physicians. (p.22) 

Mr. Lewis: What is the legitimate distribution of the drug.  
Mr. Anslinger: There is its use in medicine.  Then the hemp product is used in some parts of Kentucky, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.  It is grown for hemp purposes.  It makes very fine cordage, and this legislation exempts the mature stalk when it is grown for hemp purposes.  
Mr. McCormick.  There are other commercial purposes. 
Mr. Anslinger.  Yes. 
Mr. McCormack.  There is the fiber out of which hats are made? 
Mr. McCormack: Then is not the seed used for paints and oil. 
Mr. McCormack:  And it is also used as a constituent of commercial bird 
seed. 

(The following statements were submitted by Mr. Anslinger) 

Marihuana is the same as Indian hemp, hashish, cannabis, cannabis Americana, or cannabis sativa.  Marihuana is the Mexican term for cannabis indica. 
The term "cannabis" in the Geneva Convention of 1925 and in the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act included only the dried flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plants as the plant source of the dangerous resin.  Research during the past few months show conclusively that this definition is insufficient as we have found by experiment that the leaves of the 
pistillate plant as well as the leaves of the staminate plant contain the active principal up to 50 percent of the U. S. P. strength....we are urging the several States to revise their definition to include all parts of the plant as it now appears that the seeds and portions other than the dried flowering tops contain positively dangerous substances...(p.29) 

MARIHUANA IS THE MEXICAN TERM FOR CANNABIS INDICA 
The plant or drug known as Cannabis indica, or marihuana, has as its parent the plant known as Cannabis sativa. 

It is popularly known in India as Cannabis Indica; in America, as Cannabis americana, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis mexicana, in accordance with the geographical origin of the particular plant.(p.37) 

TAXATION OF MARIHUANA 
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1937 

Mr. Hester:  All legitimate users of marihuana are exempted from the provisions of this bill which imposes taxes upon transfers of marihuana and require such transfers to be made on order forms obtained from the collector of internal revenue, except purchasers of marihuana seeds for use in the making of bird seed, or marihuana seeds as bird seed, and purchasers of the flowering tops and leaves of marihuana for use in the making of the refined drug product. 

   Those legitimate users of marihuana who are exempted from these transfer taxes and order form requirements, are purchasers of the mature stalk of marihuana for use in the making of fiber products such as twine, purchasers of marihuana seeds for the further planting of marihuana and the manufacture of oil, and purchasers of such oil for use in the manufacture of paints and varnishes. 
  
Hemp.  since the definition of marihuana in the bill excludes the mature stalk of the plant and any product or manufacture of such stalk such as twine, all hemp, fiber, or cordage manufacturers and dealers would not be subject to any provision of the bill. ...However, any person who grows marihuana, even if for the sole purpose of sale to a hemp manufacturer, would have to pay an occupational tax as a producer.  The reason for this is that such production cannot be limited to the mature stalks of such plant since the stalk cannot be grown without also producing the flowering tops and leaves.(p.46) 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. MUNCH, PHARMACOLOGIST, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Dr. Munch.  Cannabis or marihuana was introduced into human medicine by  O'Shaughnessy in 1838. (p.49) 
Dr. Munch.  "Marihuana" is the name for Cannabis in the Mexican Pharmacopoeia. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LYSTER H. DEWEY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. Dewey.  My name is Lyster H. Dewey.  When I was in the Department of 
Agriculture I was in charge of fibers other than cotton, from 1858 to 1935, when I retired for age. 
    
The plant cannabis sativa, so-called by Linnaeus in 1753, constitutes one species of hemp that has been known longer than any other fiber plant in the world.  IT WAS CULTIVATED IN CHINA AT LEAST THREE CENTURIES BEFORE CHRIST. 

....there are different botanists who have seen the different forms of the plant and have given it different names, so far as its identity is concerned....there is only one species known as hemp. 

The term "hemp" is better known than marihuana because the name marihuana has been used only for the drug, while hemp is used in connection with the production of fiber.  I was working with the fiber and not with the drug; that was incidental. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH F. LOZIER, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OILSEED PRODUCTS. 

Mr. Lozier:   May I say to this committee that, in my opinion, the measure before you is one which should not be hastily considered or hastily acted upon.  It is of that type of legislation which conceals within its four corners activities, agencies, and results that this committee, without a thorough investigation, would never think were embodied in its measure (p.60)... 

        If the committee please, the hemp seed, or the seed of the cannabis sativa L. is used in all the Oriental nations and also in a part of Russia as food.  It is grown in their fields and used as oatmeal.  Millions of people every day are using hemp seed in the Orient as food (p.61)... 

        The point I make is this, that this bill is too all-inclusive.  This bill is a world encircling measure. This bill brings the activities, the  crushing of this great industry under the supervision of a bureau, WHICH MAY MEAN ITS SUPPRESSION... In the last 3 years there have been 193,000,000 pounds of hemp seed imported into this country, or an average of 64,000,000 pounds a year... 

Mr. Woodruff:   What is the oil used for? 

Mr. Lozier:   It is a drying oil, and its use is comparable to that of linseed oil or a perilla oil.  It has a high iodine principle or strength.  It is a rapidly drying oil to use in paints.  It is also used in soap and in linoleum (p.61). 

Mr. Lozier:   ...They manufacture this oil (hemp seed) and sell it in tank cars.  They have been engaged in this business for years, and never until the last 3 weeks was any suggestion made that they were handling a commodity that was carrying a deleterious principle that was contributing to the delinquency of the people of the United 
States(p.63). 

FURTHER STATEMENT OF CLINTON M. HESTER, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. Hester:   ...Pursuant to your request yesterday afternoon we conferred with Judge Lozier and Mr. Williamson, and,  also with Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. 
Conners, and, as a result of our conference, those gentlemen, who represent importers of the seeds and those who crush the seeds for the purpose of making oil and using the residue of the seeds for making meal and cake, have expressed the view that they are willing to pay the occupational tax which is provided in this bell if the DEFINITION OF MARIJUANA IN THIS BILL IS AMENDED SO AS TO ELIMINATE OIL MADE FROM THE SEEDS, AND THE MEAL AND CAKE WHICH ARE MADE FROM THE SEEDS, AS WELL AS ANY COMPOUNDS OR MANUFACTURES OF EITHER OIL, MEAL, OR CAKE.....I see no objection to amending the definition of marihuana so as to eliminate oil, meal, cake, and the manufactured compounds of those materials. (p.68) 

AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 6358 

Hempseed oil, hempseed cake, hempseed meal, and all products manufactured from the above may be eliminated from the preview of the bill by amending section (b), which contains the definition of marihuana, to read as follows:  The term marihuana includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not: the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin; but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, oil, or cake made from seeds, and any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks, oil or cake.....Since paints, varnishes, and hempseed oil, under the definition as amended, will not be included 
within the term :marihuana:, it is no longer necessary to exempt these products from the transfer tax. (p.69) 

TAXATION OF MARIHUANA 
FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1937 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND G. SCARLETT, REPRESENTING WILLIAM G. SCARLETT & CO., BALTIMORE, MD. 

We handle a considerable quantity of hempseed annually for use in pigeon feeds.  That is a necessary ingredient in pigeon feed because it contains an oil substance that is a valuable ingredient of pigeon feed, and we have not been able to find any seed that will take its place...it has a tendency to bring back the feathers and improve the birds. 

There has been an amendment proposed  to section 1 (b) by excluding from the definition of marihuana sterilized seed which is incapable of germination, so that section 1 (b), as so amended, would read as follows: 
  
    The term "marihuana" includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof: the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin; but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, oil, or cake, and the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. 

  Mr. Scarlett:  Until Monday of this week we did not know there was any connection between the two i.e. hempseed and marihuana.  When this bill came out and we saw that it was called a bill to impose an occupational excise tax upon dealers in marihuana we paid no attention to it.  Nobody in the seed trade refers to hempseed as marihuana. Hempseed is a harmless ingredient used for many years in the seed trade. 

  The trade at large do not know that this bill that is under consideration contains any provision affecting them, because the title of the bill would give them no knowledge that it was hempseed that was under discussion. (p.76) 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH B.. HERTZSFELD, MANAGER, FEED DEPARTMENT, THE 
PHILADELPHIA SEED CO., PHILADELPHIA, PA. 

Hempseed is very beneficial because it adds the proper oil to the mixture of and promotes the growth of feathers; and it is also a general vitalizer.  Birds lose their feathers and hempseed aids considerably in restoring the bird's vitality quickly.  Otherwise there is a delay of  2 or 3 months before the bird gets back into condition, and the use of hempseed helps to accomplish that purpose.(p.77) 

Mr. Hester: It is the ordinary field hemp growing wild, or at least without the extensive cultivation necessary to provide good fiber.  The committee may have been confused because we have used the term marihuana in this bill. 
 
     The reason for that is this.  This is the hemp drug, commonly known in Mexico and in the United States as marihuana.  It is just a colloquial term in Mexico, as I understand it, and means the flowered tops and leaves of the hemp plant, the subject of the taxes contained in this bill because it was not intended to tax the whole plant, but merely the parts of the plant which contain the drug.  The parts of the plant which contain the drug are commonly known as marihuana, so the taxes were imposed upon "marihuana." 

   In addition, I might say that some people say that the marihuana seed should be called fruit, because, botanically speaking, it is a fruit, not a seed. (p.78) 

Mr. Reed:  YOU WILL HAVE A REVOLUTION ON YOUR HANDS  if, as you say, this 
plant grows generally throughout the country and you try to charge the farmers a tax of $25, as you said. (p.79) 

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Hester, do you not believe that the average farmer would be willing to use a mowing machine or a scythe if he thought that in that way or any way at all after a year or 2 years he could exterminate and KILL THE WEED WHICH KILLS PEOPLE? (p.83) 

Mr. Crowther.  According to a brief that has been submitted, as a rule the addict passes into a dreamy state, in which judgment is lost, the imagination runs rampant; he is subject to bizarre ideas, lacking in continuity, and losing all sense of the measurement of time and space. (p.84) 

Mr. Hester.  ...we feel that we should submit to the Secretary of the Treasury, the question as to whether the Treasury Department would object to the proposed 
amendment which will except from the definition of the term marihuana sterilized seeds, which have been made incapable of germination. (p.85) 

TAXATION OF MARIHUANA 
Tuesday, May 4, 1937 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM C. WOODWARD, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL. 

....Unfortunately, I had no knowledge that such a bill as this was proposed until after it had been introduced Dr. Woodward.  There is nothing in the medicinal use of  Cannabis that has any relation to Cannabis addiction.  I use the word "cannabis" in preference to the word "marihuana", because cannabis is the correct term for describing the plant and its products.   

THE TERM "MARIHUANA" IS A MONGREL WORD THAT HAS CREPT INTO THIS COUNTRY OVER THE MEXICAN BORDER AND HAS NO GENERAL MEANING,  EXCEPT AS IT RELATES TO THE USE OF CANNABIS PREPARATIONS FOR SMOKING.   

  It is not recognized in medicine, and I might say that is is hardly recognized even in the Treasury Department.  

  I have here a copy of a letter written by the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, April 15, 1937, in which he says: 
     Marihuana is one of the products of the plant Cannabis sativa l., a plant which is sometimes referred to as Cannabis americana or Cannabis indica.  In other words, MARIHUANA IS NOT THE CORRECT TERM.  It was the use of the term "marihuana" rather  than the use of the term "Cannabis" or the use of the term "Indian hemp" that was responsible, as you realized, probably, a day or two ago, for the failure of the dealers in Indian hempseed to connect up this bill with their business until rather late in the day.  So, if you will permit me, I shall use the word "Cannabis", and I should certainly suggest that if any legislation is enacted, the term used be "Cannabis" and not the mongrel word "marihuana." 

    I say the medicinal use of Cannabis has nothing to do with Cannabis or marihuana addiction.  In all that you have heard here thus far, no mention has been made of any excessive use of the drug by any doctor or its excessive distribution by any pharmacist.  And yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on  the doctors and pharmacists of  the country; and I may say very heavily,  most  heavily,  possibly of all, on the farmers of  
the country.(p.90) 

The medicinal use of Cannabis, as you have been told,  has decreased enormously....To say,  however, as has been proposed here, that  the use of the drug should be prevented by a prohibitive tax, loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for cannabis.  

...Indian  hemp has remarkable properties in revealing the subconscious; hence it can be used for psychological,  psychoanalytical,  and psychotherapeutic research, though only to a very limited extent... 
  That use, by the way, was recognized by John Stuart Mill in his work on psychology, where he referred to the ability of Cannabis or Indian hemp to revive old memories, and psychoanalysis depends on revivification of hidden memories..(p.92) 


MARIJUANA: MYTHS AND REALITIES, Edited by J. L. Simmons, Ph.D.  1967.  Brandon House, North Hollywood, CA.  239 Pages.  Book size:  6 3/4 X 4 1/4 inches.  On pages 160 &161 is the following summary of a look at the 1937 Tax Act.  "IN THE MARKETPLACE OF FREE IDEAS: A Look At The Passage Of The Marihuana Tax Act"
By Joseph S. Oteri, Esq., L.L.B  And Harvey A. Silverglate., L.L.B.

   "But the largest loophole in the Convention [Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, United Nations, 1961], which entirely belies Mr. Anslinger's interpretation of the document, provides that while signatory nations are obligated to adopt measures to implement the aims of the Convention, that obligation is 'subject to (the) constitutional limitations' of each Party. (Emphasis supplied.) (Single Convention, Article 36-1.) Thus both the Congress and Mr. Anslinger, having long-ignored the pleas of medical men and scientists that they take a rational view of the problem, may someday find themselves embarrassed by a court's finding that the entire range of marijuana legislation violates one or more clauses of the United States Constitution. Perhaps the law is not 'locked up so tightly' after all.

It would be a sharp blow to the legislative process and to the pride and reputation of legislative bodies if the present laws remain unexamined long enough to force a court to look at the facts and conclude that the marijuana laws were passed without any investigation into what is known by experts -sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, pharmacologists, and so forth. This might well happen when the concept of Due Process of Law is interpreted so as to require a legislature to look at the facts before it passes severe penal laws.

Yet the legislatures, including the Congress of the United States, have thus far chosen to continue accepting the old well-worn myths propagated by men with no scientific objectivity or training. To those who were given a, perhaps, too rosy view of the legislative process in high school civics classes, it is probably surprising to see how, despite an increasingly loud debate on the medical effects of marijuana and on the wisdom, indeed the legality, of the Marijuana Tax Act, the 'spirit of '37' still prevails when 'the marketplace of free ideas' tries to gain entry into the legislative chambers of the nation." (pp.160-161.)


*****

I had a similar argument in my constitutional challenge from Arizona:

"The totality of the arguments herein show present classification of Cannabis so erroneous that such classification is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arizona..." (Davis v. Arizona.) Curator.

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, let the federal government get its foot in the door of drug policy.  Prior to this date the States had the right to determine drug policy.  This Act has led to peeing in a cup as a condition of employment.  We are the only country in the world where free people do this.

*****

6.  SOLUTIONS
END PROHIBITION It's been done before in 1933
A few years back I wrote the following initiative measure for California to end prohibition.  It certainly should be adopted by the California Leaders, and if not by the people.  With the 2001 power crisis upon us we need to press for acceptance of bio-mass energy crops, to fuel the 31 bio-mass generators in California that sit unused half the year for lack of fuel.
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO 
THE VOTERS

TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the fore-described County (or City and County), hereby propose changes to the Health and Safety Code Sections 11357- 11362 relating to the Cannabis sativa plant by whatever name, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding primary or general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that primary or general election or otherwise provided by law.

The proposed statutory initiative reads as follows.

THE CANNABIS SATIVA ACT OF 2000 A.D.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT 
AS FOLLOWS:

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 11357- 11362.

 

SECTION 1.
TITLE

This initiative shall be known as the Cannabis sativa Act of 2000 A.D.

SECTION 2.
FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. 

A. The People of the State of California find and  declare that since the United States Federal Government is forbidden by law to control farm production as it has with the plant Cannabis sativa in California (see U.S. v. Butler, 297, U.S. I, 1936), has interfered with medical use of the plant Cannabis sativa under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, in violation of the spirit and intent of the U.N. Single Convention Treaty, and has continually (from the U.S. Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937, to the present) subjected us to silence on the benefits of Cannabis hemp, and the safety of medical Cannabis, while mounting the most pernicious campaign against the rights and privileges of California citizens who choose to use what is our inalienable right to use, plants given to us by the Creator, including the plant Cannabis sativa.

B.. The People of the State of California find and declare that physicians, caregivers, producers and patients are continually being harassed, arrested and prosecuted for the recommendation, transportation, distribution and use of cannabis for medical purposes.

C. The People of the State of California find and declare that the development and use of Cannabis sativa (hemp) as a basic natural renewable resource is in the best interest of the state economy and that the development of Cannabis sativa for the production of hemp and hemp products can be of tremendous medical, environmental and social advantage.

D.. The People of the State of California find and declare that the safety of Cannabis sativa (no overdose deaths in recorded history, no toxicity), warrant removal of the plant from the Schedules of the Controlled Substances Act, thereby re-establishing Cannabis sativa as a free market agricultural resource.

E. The People of the State of California find and declare that due to the safety and lack of toxicity and many medical applications of Cannabis sativa, the government is not warranted to invade the privacy of the family unit on adolescent use of Cannabis, unless due process is used. Control of Cannabis sativa use in the home is in the proper purview of parents or guardians of underage Californians.

SECTION 3. PURPOSES

A. Therefore, be it resolved that the People of California do hereby declare that the purpose of the Cannabis sativa Act of 2000 A.D. is to re-establish as an inalienable right of liberty of the people of California to use, grow, farm and develop economically the plant Cannabis sativa free of interference by the United States Federal Government, pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

B. Therefore, be it resolved that the People of the State of California do hereby recognize the medical value of cannabis, and do hereby propose this Cannabis sativa Act of 2000 A.D. with the intent to authorize physicians to prescribe, pharmacists to dispense, producers to supply, and patients to use with or without a prescription Cannabis sativa for medical purposes, with the full protection of the law of the land given an inalienable right.

SECTION 4. DEFINITION OF MEDICAL USE

Medical use shall be defined as the personal consumption in any manner of any form of Cannabis sativa for any medical purpose as determined by an adult citizen of California or determined by the parent or guardian of underage Californians. This is an inalienable right of liberty for Californians.

SECTION 5. EXCLUSION OF PRIOR ACTS

The Cannabis sativa Act of 2000 A.D. shall be construed to repeal, delete, expunge, deny or abridge any California Statute or Code, criminal or civil, relating to the Cannabis sativa plant.

SECTION 6.
 PRESCRIPTION BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN

Any prescription issued by a licensed physician in the State of California for medical Cannabis shall conform to the standard format of a prescription and recommendations of medical Cannabis sativa for any medical purpose may be made as deemed appropriate by the physician or the patient, recognizing the inalienable right of the patient to the plant.

SECTION 7. DISPENSING BY A PHARMACIST

Any pharmacist licensed in the State of California may purchase, transport, store and dispense Cannabis sativa for the purpose of filling a prescription issued by a physician.   All Cannabis sativa sold by licensed pharmacists must be organically produced in accordance with the California Organic Food Act of 1990. No special form or procedure shall be required of a pharmacist filling a prescription for Cannabis sativa.

SECTION 8. ZONING RESTRICTIONS

Zoning restrictions regarding the cultivation of Cannabis sativa for industrial purposes may be set forth by the proper authorities in the same manner as with any other food, agricultural or industrial enterprise.

SECTION 9. FREEDOM FROM HARASSMENT

(A) People engaged in the activities described in this Act shall be free from 
harassment by any and all authorities.

(B) "Harassment" shall be defined as any act departing from the norm observed in the course of inspecting or supervising a commercial agricultural enterprise, including, but not limited to, aerial surveillance of a kind not customary to a commercial agricultural enterprise.

SECTION 10.  CEASING PROSECUTION, VACATING SENTENCES, RELEASING FROM PRISON, EXPUNGING OF RECORDS

(A) Enactment of this initiative shall include: release from prison, jail, parole and probation, and clearing, expungement and deletion of all criminal records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any Cannabis sativa offenses included in this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal.

(B) Evidence of criminal proceedings involving the plant Cannabis sativa which under this initiative are no longer illegal shall be expunged from a defendant’s record within 30 days of the passage of this Act.

SECTION 11.  LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION

This Act is an exercise of the public power of the state for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of California, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate these purposes.

SECTION 12.  SEVERABILITY

The provisions of this Act are severable. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

SECTION 13. CONFLICTING MEASURES

If this measure is approved by the voters but superseded by any other conflicting ballot measure approved by more voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is later held invalid, it is the intent of the voters that this Act shall be self-executing and given full force of the law.

SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act shall become effective immediately upon its approval by the voters.

SECTION 15. SELF-EXECUTION

This Act shall be self-executing.

SECTION 16. AMENDMENT

This Act shall not be altered or amended except by a vote of the people.

*****

9.  THE CASE OF ALASKA.
HIGH TIMES:  Aug/Sept, 1974.  ALASKA GOES LEGAL.  The case of Ravin v. State of Alaska, 1974, led the Alaska Supreme Court to rule that growing and smoking Cannabis was protected in home and yard by the State Constitution's right to privacy.  This remains the law today.  In other words, half a million Americans can light up a joint without fear of arrest, while the rest of us are at risk of jail.  Who said the federal government was in charge of drug policy?  Not in Alaska, and not for the last 30 years has the federal government been able to do anything about it.

12.  LETTERS ON LEGAL MATTERS

13.  MAGAZINES ON MARIJUANA

14.  CURATOR'S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

18.  READINGS ON LEGAL MATTERS

If you would like to join the USA Hemp Museum
or communicate with the curator, send an email to

Richard M. Davis:
Curator, Founder, Author

ABOUT THE CURATOR

The U.S.A. Hemp Museum
now has its own personal snail mail box: 

 Richard M. Davis, Curator
U.S.A. Hemp Museum
HempMuseum Publishing
PMB #1-435
8205 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA  90046-5977

Help support the USA Hemp Museum -

Please Make A Donation 
To The USA Hemp Museum's Building Fund

So We Can Make Public Our Collection
Of Over 1,700 Hemp History Items

and/or buy the book

HEMP FOR VICTORY: A GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTION

USA Hemp Museum Store - Bookmark This Site - Museum Link - Email The Museum